linux-kernel - Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E1HhobO-0003O4-00@calista.eckenfels.net>
Date:	Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:12:46 +0200
From:	Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@...a.inka.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

In article <20070426191835.GA12740@....eu> you wrote:
>  a) it may do so for a short and bound time, typically less than the
>     maximum acceptable latency for other tasks

if you have n threads in runq and each of them can have m<d (d=max latency
deadline) overhead, you will have to account on d/n slices. This is
typically not possible for larger number of ready threads.

Therefore another aproach would be to make sure the next thread gets a
smaller slice, but then you will have to move around that debit and
distribute it fair, which is the whole problem we face here.

(Besides it is not clear to me if fair scheduling gets the best results, see
the X problem or compare threads vs. process vs. subsystems).

Gruss
Bernd

PS: sorry for that Cc trimming, I need to get rid of my mail2news gateway,
however I will make sure to copy important info to all concerend parties -
dont think thats needed for my ramblings .)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/